Category talk:Domes in East Jerusalem

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

This category is totally redundant. There is no real separation between East and West Jerusalem. The separation is in theory for political and social purposes. For example, you may talk about whether Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem should be considered settlements or not, but in practice the whole area is an integral part of the city of Jerusalem, and both Jews and Arabs cross the invisible East/West line every day without interruption. Furthermore, the Palestinian Authority has no control over East Jerusalem, so relating this category to the category about the Palestinian Authority is misleading. Note, that this is not a political statement, but a mere description of facts on the ground. We could place Jerusalem under both Israel and West Bank categories, just as we put the Golan Heights under both Israel and Syria categories, but creating this category and placing it under the Palestinian Authority category is simply misleading. Drork (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think what Drork has written, is very much a political statement, and is misleading in itself. East Jerusalem was until June 5, 1967 not under the Israeli control It was first under the Ottoman control for over 300 years, then under the control of the British Mandate, then under the Jordanian control. It was occupied by Israel in 1967. Any decisions made by Israel alone regarding East Jerusalem without the approval of the UN are null and void, so East Jerusalem is still part of the peace negotiations, and is considered by the Palestinian side as part of the Palestinian National Authority territories. --Producer (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I kindly invite you to read this article, and have a look at this search result in Google. --Producer (talk) 22
28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know Jerusalem exists as a city for more than 3000 years. The East-West division was an arbitrary decision resulted from a war and internationally recognized for the purpose of ending the war only (please read articles carefully and don't rely on one article alone). This division existed for 19 years, and today it is practically non-existent, and no one suggests to reintroduce it (there are different political settlements suggested for Jerusalem, none of them suggests reintroducing the 1949 ceasefire line). So there you have it - no politics, only facts. Now for the purpose of the Commons, we don't need to argue about the right political solution for Jerusalem. There are other forums dedicated for this end. The Dome of the Rock is not a dome in East Jerusalem, it is a dome on the Temple Mount (a.k.a. Al-Haram A-Sharif or Har Ha-Bayit) in Jerusalem. As I said, you can argue that the category about Jerusalem should be connected to both Israel and the West Bank due to the political uncertainty. Drork (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 :) I know the history of Jerusalem pretty well Drork, I was born there in a house that was built some 650 years ago in the Northern part of Al Haram Al Shareef, and it still stands till today. I have three paintings of David Roberts that has the house in it! "The West Bank of the River Jordan" is not an entity, while East Jerusalem is and was. It may not be considered so in Israel, but else where it is, so please also see this as a fact for the category and not a political statement. Please look at the history of the Image, and see if I started with any political statements as you are trying to imply, I was just trying to be fair. Cheers. --Producer (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
More so, please have a look at this article too, Jerusalem Governorate. Happy Reading!--Producer (talk) 12
59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The so-called governorate of Jerusalem is an internal Jordanian administrative division of the West Bank. Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950, lost it during the war with Israel in 1967 and gave it up officially in 1988, so this administrative division ceased to exist. In 1993 the PLO as the official representative of the Palestinian people recognized Israel as an independent state and acknowledged that the Palestinian territorial claims are valid to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Nevertheless, the agreement, known as the Oslo accord, maintains that the issue of Jerusalem will be discussed in a later phase of the negotiations. Currently, the Palestinian National Authority has no authority in Jerusalem. Israel proclaimed the entire city as its capital. The whole city is administered as part of Israel. The Arab Palestinian residents have either citizenship or permanent resident status in Israel. They don't bear neither Palestinian nor Jordanian passports. Most of the countries do not recognize the Israeli proclamation, but do not recognize it as a Palestinian city either. Drork (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
If any thing the above is an official Israeli political statement by Drork. I wonder if the Community here accept this kind of politics. Drork decided that the Israeli Scenario is the one to be implemented. I thought through my contribution in Commons I was adding my efforts and knowledge to a free and neutral community!? I wish the Community at Commons will help us decide what is the right scenario, and if wether it is righjt or wrong to add the category East Jerusalem.--Producer (talk) 10
47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
L O L ! Actually I'm flattered. I never thought of myself as a diplomat. In the last state comptroller's report published on the Israeli press, the comptroller complains indeed that several Israeli diplomats were appointed without proper qualifications, and yet no one would dream to appoint me as the government's official spokesperson. Even the Israeli government has its limits :-) Now let's get back to the point - you claim that I bring political opinions rather than facts. Well, I brought you facts, but you insist on calling them political opinions, and you even "appoints" me as an Israeli spokesperson. What else can I do? Now you want the Commons community to decide whether there is such thing as East Jerusalem or not, but this is not something the Commons community should deal with. It is not our job to decide if and how the city of Jerusalem should be divided. The facts on the ground is that it is one city. It was divided for a short period of 19 years - that is 19 years out of 3000 years or so of history. There is practically a category for every interesting neighborhood in Jerusalem, and there is even special category for the Temple Mount divided into subcategories about every mosque on the mountain. Now you want to add a special category called "Domes in East Jerusalem". What's the use of it? Is it just meant to put the phrase "East Jerusalem" on the Commons' "map"? If so, you are the one who try to introduce politics here. Drork (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I am glad I made you laugh, I did not initially create the "Category:East Jerusalem" in Commons, It existed much earlier, I just added a new sub-category which is Domes in East Jerusalem, which is a fact. You were the person to claim that I politicized this category. I did not. The above is clear, and yes why not to have the community in Commons participate in this discussion, it is very much like any other matter, and people here are quite intelligent. What you do for the Israeli government is the least of my worries, but I do understand your adoption of the government's stand, you simply are not neutral. Cheers.--Producer (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Politics aside there are not enough files to sustain the category, if Category:Domes in Jerusalem was overloaded with files or was inaccurate then it would be justified in creating as many subcategories as was needed to diffuse the category.KTo288 (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I am an Israeli citizen, I do not work for the Israeli government. In Israel it is perfectly okay to object the official government policy and to write against it. In case you thought otherwise, please bear in mind that there are no limitations on my freedom of speech, so there is no need to read between the lines of what I say here. Drork (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Who is assuming any such thing??!! I am not!--Producer (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Category name is fine[edit]

There is absolutely no requirement that I can see that a geographical reference used in a category name have a precisely-defined legal significance. Almost none of the 40 neighborhood names in the sub categories of Category:New_York_City_neighborhoods have a precise official definition, but we don't delete those categories. Furthermore, I really don't see how "East Jerusalem" is a provocatively-chosen title. If it had been named "Category:Domes in Zionist-occupied Al-Quds", then that would have been a provocatively-chosen title. SFriendly.gif -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with AnonMoos, beside, this is almost the only name known in the M.E. --Tarawneh (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The things is - there are already categories dedicated to the Al-Aqsa mosque, to the Temple Mount and to the Old City of Jerusalem in general. If you open a category "Domes in East Jerusalem" rather than "Domes on the Temple Mount", then it smells like unnecessary political implication. Drork (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Unnecessary political implication! Drork, I am clearly lost here, as I have no idea how can a category in commons named after a geographical location would result in an unnecessary political implication, especially when the name is used by the people living in East Jerusalem and almost everybody in the middle-east!--Tarawneh (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The name East Jerusalem is common among Hebrew speakers in Israel too. In common usage it refers to those neighborhoods of Jerusalem whose population is predominantly Arab (no one remembers the exact path of the 1949-1967 ceasefire line, but the fine line that runs between the predominently Jewish quarters and the predominently Arab quarters is still relevant in many ways). HOWEVER, opening a special category for "domes in East Jerusalem" while there is already a category dedicated to the Temple Mount is problematic and my feeling is that there is an attempt to make a tacit political statement. Drork (talk) 07:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
neighborhoods of Jerusalem whose population is predominantly Arab! This is not true, so lets stick to the facts Drork. Plus your assumption "a tacit political statement" is based on what? I am sorry, but I do fail to see your point. Drork, you know that this is almost the only name used in the Arab world for the place. Now an image can be found in more than one category. why do you insist on undermining the need of a naming used by hundreds of millions of people using an excuse like unnecessary political implication? If the category name is misleading, I would not hesitate supporting you, but you are not giving me any argument. Please give a more clear reasoning. And please we are commons, not the Knesset. Please Dorok, please, please, please stop pushing the politics into this. --Tarawneh (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)